LOCAL INTELLIGENCE.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume III, Issue 175, 20 May 1864, Page 2

LOCAL INTELLIGENCE.

The Firing for the Government Prizes being fixed for Monday last, a large number of competitors mustered on the ground at

the appointed hour. Tlie morning was very gloomy and threatened rain, although at that time there was very little wind, and firing was proceeded with hy the first squad, composed of townsmen. The shooting was very indifferent on the whole, and at the finish Mr. P. Hadley proved the highest on the score, having made 24 points. The weather had gradually grown worse, and rain had set in before they had finished, hut as the next squad was composed of country people, who were anxious to get home again, the firing was proceeded with. At the finish Mr. Dudley was still the highest. Perhaps a worse day than this could scarcely have been pitched upon. On the following day (Tuesday) there was a strong wind blowing, and the firing was postponed to Wednesday, when several of the cumpetiors assembled. but, as the wind was still very high, firing was deferred till 1 p.m. At that hour a squad of 22 men commenced, although there were stiff gusts of wind prevailing. The shooting was, havever, very good on an average, and the target was so riddled that a fresh one had to be substituted on the completion of the second range. Darkness, however, set in after the first round had been fired at the third range, and the competitors were obliged to cease firing, each having still four shots to fire. These, we believe, will all he scored as misses, as the regulations stipulate that each competitor shall fire the whole of his rounds on one day. The highest score made on this day was 19 points by Mr. Thorpe, of Kcreru.

Resident Magistrate’s Court. —The Herald of \Vednesday last contains a paragraph conimeating unjustly ou a decision given in the above Court in the case of Hoylan v. Hodges. Previous to the hearing of this case, another of a similar character was heard—Munn v. Hodges. Plaintiff sued defendant, who is a member of the Defence Force stationed here, for a debt, incurred prior to his entering that Corps. As the defendant did not appear, the Magistrate gave judgment for the amount claimed, but as the debt was under the sum of A3O, at the same time gave plaintiff to understand that the “Mutiny Act” provided that “ no Soldier or other Person as aforesaid shall be liable by any Process whatever to appear before any Justice of the Peace or other Authority whatever, or to be taken out ol her Majesty’s Service by any Writ, Summons, Warrant, Order, Judgment, Execution, or any Process whatsoever issued by or by the Authority of any Court of Law, or any Magistrate, Justice or Justices of the Peace, or any other Authority whatsoever, for any original Debt not amounting to Thirty Pounds.” The decision in the case of Boylan v. Hodges was of a like nature, and we do not see how it could I e otherwise.